Let's talk definitions.

One of my entries, The war of art, talked about a side of which was confusing, as Yuggy said, I was talking about design, not art. Thanks Yugs.

What I was talking about then was that the art school I’m going in now is teaching us to design, and not at all encouraged to create a masterpiece. Although a design could be such, it’s the fact that we’re taught to create something “enough”. It’s just the context I’m moving around in, I guess.

So, here are some clarifications. Art is an expression of one’s self, something that even the word per se is. It has almost a thousand definitions going along the lines of emotions, mindsets, philosophies, plans, visions, goals, etc. There really is no proper definition of art.*

Design, on the other hand, is, just like art, everywhere. It is the so-called beautification process, wherein expression of one’s self is contained into making things appealing to everyone, highly dependent on the execution of the concept rather than the concept itself. As my friend defined it, design is made to sell.

Now that we’re more or less clear on that, I’ll get back to my point of competition.

We could see that there are thousands of people holding a "modern art medium" nowadays. It's quite visible that almost everyone will soon have a work based on multimedia, and I'm quite happy about it. What I'm not happy about is the competition.

I'm not afraid of it, but I'm not happy with it. Not for me, but for those who took up multimedia just for the hell of it. Again, I’m talking about passion and the reality behind creating for the sake of selling. It’s sad to see someone selling something he/she isn’t even willing to sell.

A friend told me (forgot who) that no one does art for art’s sake nowadays. The generalization, of course, made me angry. I guess he was also pointing out that everyone just designing to make money rather than do something they love. It’s their sad story, and for the record, people still do art for art’s sake. Have you thought about independent cinema or conceptual photography, at least? It’s their pride to create something they love and not have someone pay billions for it. Some of those in the culture would be glad, but the majority in it would rather have themselves, or their creation rather, be exposed to the public not because of fame but of the message they want to send.

Basically, my whole point is that one shouldn’t really confine himself/herself in designing as it does little or no good in improvements. Doing art for art’s sake, or whatever quotation or parable you might put in your head as mindset can make you come up with better concepts, better artworks, creating better designs.

Now, what would constitute a design? It is something that would sell, something unique and eye catching, wherein your target audience will think and, of course, being it as something more than an eye candy.

If a design is a masterpiece, something accredited more than an artwork or an advertisement shenanigan, maybe it could be considered art, the design per se. But who said that they are two entirely different entities? They may have different angle definitions, but they are highly related.

Art and design is a debatable topic, and there might be a lot of personal opinions regarding some art movements that should not be considered art. Prepare for such, and start researching on Jackson Pollock and his “expression” of art. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for abstract expressionism.

Anyway, cheers.
* .